09 May 2012

Mike Aus used to be a liberal Christian pastor, but had a
reverse road-to-Damascus moment when he studied Darwin’s theory of evolution
via natural selection and realised its implications for Christian beliefs. Aus
has written a splendid essay on the Richard Dawkins Foundation website describing
these implications that demolish key tenets of the Christian faith, including
the concept of ‘original sin’, the doctrine of mankind’s fall and its subsequent
redemption through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and the idea of an immortal
soul. The entire essay is a clearly laid out exposé of Christianity’s vacuity in
light of evolutionary science, but in the following paragraph Aus states the
obvious reason (which sadly cannot be stated enough) why Christianity, or any
other religion, is incompatible with science:

When I was working as a pastor I would
often gloss over the clash between the scientific world view and the
perspective of religion. I would say that the insights of science were no
threat to faith because science and religion are “different ways of knowing”
and are not in conflict because they are trying to answer different questions.
Science focuses on “how” the world came to be, and religion addresses the
question of “why” we are here. I was dead wrong. There are not different ways
of knowing. There is knowing and not knowing, and those are the only two
options in this world. Religion, even “enlightened” liberal religion, is
generally not interested in the facts on the ground. Religion is really not
about “knowing” anything; it is about speculation not based on reality.

Liberal, progressive Christians may congratulate themselves
on their acceptance of evolution, but as long as they fail to fully grasp the
implications of science for their beliefs – that there’s only one reality to be
known, and only one way to know anything about that reality – their
self-satisfaction remains a (less severe) form of self-delusion.